Due at least in part to the extremely large amount of data available for search on the Internet, and due at least in part to the relatively unstructured nature of that data, it can be difficult or inconvenient to search for information on a relatively specific topic. While there are a number of known methods for search of large unstructured data libraries, these known methods are generally limited by their inability to focus on topics of relative specificity, particularly when the searcher is already aware of the type of information being looked for.
For example, classic key-word search engines, even those which have been enhanced with additional technologies such as Google's “PageRank” feature, provide many, many sources of information that might be relevant to the searcher's topic. However, the sheer number of those sources can overwhelm even the most dedicated searcher. For example, in an informal test, the inventor found that a search for the phrase “breast cancer” (note: not the individual words, but the particular phrase as a word-pair) yielded over 128,000,000 entries when searched by Google. While this number of responses is likely to be relatively complete, it has the drawback of probably burying information the searcher is looking for in a haystack of dross.
Similarly, those searches which rely on human-created taxonomies, such as for example the Open Directory Project, have the drawback that they can become swamped by the relatively large amount of information available, and by the rate at which that information changes, is updated, or becomes obsolete. Moreover, while human-created taxonomies have the advantage of actually applied brainpower to development of the taxonomy, it often occurs that the taxonomy chosen by the editors is not suited to searches of interest to particular users. For example, in an informal search for peer-reviewed articles on medical information, the inventor found that there was no shortage of information available for the lay public, but that documents addressed to those able to interpret the technical jargon of the field were difficult to separate from those which were simply overview articles.
Among other known methods include content-consolidators, such as for example WebMD and UpToDate. As with human-created taxonomies, while these sources provide a valuable resource to those searchers who are becoming familiar with their topic of interest, they have the drawback that they often lack depth. As with human-created taxonomies, they serve a public which is relatively unfamiliar with technical information, with the effect that the effort devoted by such consolidators is often relatively limited when detailed technical information is desired.
Among other known methods are web-based encyclopedias, sometimes appearing in moderated form (such as for example Scholarpaedia) and sometimes appearing in a relatively more informal form (such as for example Wikipedia or Google Knol). Persons actually skilled in the fields in which they search might become frustrated or even misinformed by the weight of so many authors weighing in on topics which both involve professional knowledge and are not of wide public interest. Even then, some professional topics have become the subject of public debate, with the result that articles written by even relatively known authors, vetted by a very large web community, can become unreliable for documentable facts.
As one strong advantage of Internet search is the wide variety of information available to searchers, the difficulty posed by having that information obscured by relatively irrelevant or even inaccurate information detracts substantially from Internet search. At present, there are no known methods which provide a method of search which is simultaneously comprehensive, convenient, substantially accurate, and which provides information suited to the nature of the search.
Readers are encouraged and exhorted to make their own evaluation of known methods.